Fail-safe draft strategy

[btdg]

Because this interests me (if no-one else), I've done some further analysis. I had a quick look at the drafts from 2001-2003, and categorised every pick by position (mid, KP, specialist or utility), and whether the pick turned out to be a decent AFL player (in my opinion, which is of course inherently flawed, but hopefully unbiased)

The aggregate results (success/total # of players in that category picked) are:
Round 1:
Midfielders (pure only - inside or outside) 18/21
KP (generic bigs) 6/13
Specialist (FF, FB, small forward, tagger, ruckman) 2/5
Utility (anyone who doesn't fit the above, generally described in write-ups as 'versatile', 'medium-sized' etc) 7/14

Round 2:
Midfielders 4/12
KP 5/13
Specialist 2/6
Utility 4/15

Round 3:
Midfielders 7/13
KP 3/6
Specialist 8/13
Utility 4/13

Round 4:
Midfielders 5/10
KP 4/9
Specialist 2/4
Utility 1/10

Round 5 and beyond:
Midfielders 3/9
KP 1/6
Specialist 0/5
Utility 4/11

Based on this, we can note the following:
- by far the safest pick in the first round is a mid-fielder, with a success of 85%. Mids appear to drop in the second round, which surprised me, but bounce back in the third, so there could be a statistical anomaly there. Aggregated across the first 2 rounds, mids are still the safest bet
- The success rate of key position players in the first round is 46%. In the second round 38%, third round 50% and fourth round 44% -basically no change in likelihood of success. This doesn't account for relative quality, of course
- Teams seem to put a run on specialists in the third round (which probably explains why I seem to remember a lot of good specialists going there).
- Players who don't fit any clear position are by far the riskiest proposition at any point in the draft except the last few rounds. Who says positional play is dead!

These stats still seem to support the chief points of my theory:
- mids are the safest bet early in the draft, and are basically a sure-thing in round 1.
- the odds of a KP pick being successful are basically the same in the fourth round as the first round, so you might as well take midfielders early on and KP players late or in the rookie draft
- It makes sense to load up on specialists in the middle rounds, as teams seem to target them there. If you don't, there are basically none left over (2/9 in rounds 4+)
- Players who have a clearly defined position are a better prospect that all-round utilities. If you must take utilities, wait til the last few rounds and target the ones that slip, rather than using early picks. My hypothesis for this phenomenon is that players with good all-round skills look fantastic in juniors and draft camp, but once you get to AFL level you are better off doing a few things very well than everything ok; ie. its better to be lightning fast with good disposal but a terrible overhead mark than it is to be average at at all three.

If I get a chance I might post the year-by-year analysis, or expand to include 2000 as well later on. By the weight of historical evidence supporting my draft theory is growing...

 

[Pafloyul]

You guys are hilarious.

The person who said that there is no such thing as a fail-safe drafting strategy is right. The term 'safe' is a dead giveaway. We are supposed to be in the strongest position come draft time which means, in theory, we are supposed to be in the box seat to get the 'best' talent. This risk minimisation theory is flawed in that playing it 'safe' means that we don't stretch our chances of getting the genuine best because we are in fear of making an error. Thus we are left with players that fill a pigeon-hole rather than the boots of a premiership player. In other words – we are left a list without a soul.

 

[Salaryman]

If I get a chance I might post the year-by-year analysis, or expand to include 2000 as well later on. By the weight of historical evidence supporting my draft theory is growing...

Yet you still picked Kreuzer at #1

 

[Pamam]

Yet you still picked Kreuzer at #1

Gilly you will be one devastated man if Cotchin isnt picked up by the Blues!!!

what will u do if he isnt?

 

[Bluebear]

Gilly you will be one devastated man if Cotchin isnt picked up by the Blues!!!

what will u do if he isnt?

change to the Tiges.

 

[Salaryman]

Gilly you will be one devastated man if Cotchin isnt picked up by the Blues!!!

what will u do if he isnt?

Pamam, I think I will go and drown my sorrows.......in lead boots in the Yarra

Seriously, I am shortly going to write "The Cotchin Manifesto" with some arguments for taking him at #1 . If anything i think btdg's post adds weight to my philosophy.

 

[Pamam]

Pamam, I think I will go and drown my sorrows.......in lead boots in the Yarra

is the yarra even that high anymore where u could drown urself??

 

[Salaryman]

is the yarra even that high anymore where u could drown urself??

Don't fear, I am only 5'8" there isn't that much to cover

 

[4blues]

Good read, interesting theory, alot more of these posts before the trade and draft is done.

 

[Pamam]

Seriously, I am shortly going to write "The Cotchin Manifesto" with some arguments for taking him at #1 . If anything i think btdg's post adds weight to my philosophy.

I think you should put forward your case on footy classified on monday!!

would be the ideal place to start this Cotchin Manifesto and not to mention in front of the viewing public!!!

 

[Salaryman]

I think you should put forward your case on footy classified on monday!!

would be the ideal place to start this Cotchin Manifesto and not to mention in front of the viewing public!!!

Nah, I have a good face......................for Big Footy

 

[Pamam]

Nah, I have a good face......................for Big Footy

if thats the case then we can pixelate your face!! hehe

 

[Monkey King]

Analysing historical data is not the same as hindsight. What I've done is create an analytical strategy, then applied it to a set of retrospective data so as to evaluate that strategy.

Interesting exercise to say the least. Good on you for spending the time analysing the data

My concern is the sample is very small. The nature of the draft has changed a great deal over the years. Consider that just beyond 10 drafts ago 26 players were selected in the Pre-Season draft and 90 in the National Draft with a further 42 selected for Ports entry into AFL ranks. Since that time drafting philosophy seems to have settled somewhat, so the recent data has more consistency. With another 10-15 drafts, such an anaysis could prove very useful.

I think it would be interesting to see some of the more knowledgable kid watchers, such as Gilly or HBF, could select the best available kids according to your criteria and without bias (Gilly-Cotchin) prior to the draft. Then take a look at it in a few years time and compare it to what was actually selected. Could actually do it for every club, a kind of a "btdg theory" full draft list that puts your method to the test.

Forget hindsight and historical data, let's do a forecast..........any takers?

 

[Salaryman]

LOL, MK, I dont' think I am any less biased than some of the Kreuzer pushers.....In fact I would have thought watching a fiar bit of the kids would make you less susceptible to some of the media-generated hype??? I have constantly maintained it is very hard to split the top 3 prospects this year.

 

[Monkey King]

LOL, MK, I dont' think I am any less biased than some of the Kreuzer pushers.....In fact I would have thought watching a fiar bit of the kids would make you less susceptible to some of the media-generated hype??? I have constantly maintained it is very hard to split the top 3 prospects this year.

Sure, just made the bias comment because I noticed you dispute that the OP selection of Kreuzner was an accurate application of his criteria. The criteria stated if a stand out tall was available you would take him with first pick. Being difficult to seperate Cotchin and Kreuzner would indicate that the latter must be selected when applying "btdg theory". And I'm sure it would break your heart to do it after doing all the hard yards lobbying for Cotchin

So then how about it Gilly..... do you have the time or inclination to put this theory to the test and do a forecast draft? Or even just Carlton selections.

Off topic; out of interest, who is the third you find hard to split... Morton?

 

[Salaryman]

Sure, just made the bias comment because I noticed you dispute that the OP selection of Kreuzner was an accurate application of his criteria. The criteria stated if a stand out tall was available you would take him with first pick. Being difficult to seperate Cotchin and Kreuzner would indicate that the latter must be selected when applying "btdg theory". And I'm sure it would break your heart to do it after doing all the hard yards lobbying for Cotchin

So then how about it Gilly..... do you have the time or inclination to put this theory to the test and do a forecast draft? Or even just Carlton selections.

Off topic; out of interest, who is the third you find hard to split... Morton?

YEs, Morton. As far as a forecast draft, I won't be doing that. As I say I still think Kreuz would be a favourite...is it what I would do, no, but as we know it is all about predictions and opinions.......not hindsight

 

[drusswaylander]

Interesting read btdg. Well argued, but as soon as you have to add so many qualifications then the basic hypothesis becomes flawed. I have a few days off and I am procrastinating over a few household jobs, so I'll have a look at this. I'll tell my wife it was a vital project

Recruiters already know that midfielders are a safer bet than any other position, because they are quicker to develop and there are more positions for them in a team. Kpp's and Rucks are a greater risk, with a higher failure rate, but they could have a greater return. That is already what they weigh up.

As others have mentioned I doubt that there will ever be a failsafe recruiting method, because when you are dealing with human beings, nothing is foolproof

As you have touched on and others have mentioned your theory and recruiting in general relys heavily on opinions. I agree that there is a general consensus on the number one and perhaps first few positions in any draft, but then opinions quickly diverge. This consensus also generally takes into account the needs of the club involved as well as the ability and position of the player.

This divergence in opinion not only comes into consideration as to what draft position a player merits, but even what position they see them playing. Did Geelong see Ling for example, as a future gun run with player when he was playing as a full forward? Kepler Bradley was thought to be the best bigman in his draft, yet was that taking into account Essendon thinking he was the next Fletcher, despite Bradley being primarily a star in the ruck at junior level and for West Perth? Would Bradley be a gun ruck now if he had been developed in that position, rather than have his confidence destroyed as a back. The what if factor.

Again you are relying on opinion when using AFL.com to categorise the position of some players. This is the opinion of one or two people. Did the team that drafted them see them the same way? If they didn't could they have been more successful or otherwise in the position AFL.com for example suggested, or conversely were players successful because a club played them in a position that was not considered when they were a junior? How does your theory factor this in?

The clubs don't have the same knowledge on all players. If the clubs don't have the same knowledge base on the talent pool then actually knowing who are the best players will never be equitable. Considering the disparity between the scouting budgets of many clubs then a number of decisions on players have been made on incomplete information, thus making any analysis of the draft flawed.

Another factor is development. The football department budgets and facilities at clubs are variable. As are club cultures. Players could be tried in positions that don't suit them etc etc. If there is a disparity in the development of players, how can you judge the draft fairly?

Opportunity is another factor as to whether a player succeeds. Would Dean Cox have developed as he has if Gardiner hadn't gone down with injury for example? Probably he would have, but perhaps not. Dumb luck can play a part in player development. So how does that fit into any draft analysis?

Any historical analysis runs into problems when dealing with the role of an individual in a theory. This is especially true when you are dealing with so few individuals as are involved in the draft. How do you factor in the foibles of individual players as to why they fail or succeed. Some players fail because they don't work hard enough, or they can't handle the pressure. That has nothing to do with position. How does an analysis allow for the failures of a Sampi or an Angwin. Their failures again had nothing to do with position. The human element generally brings many theories down, especially when you are dealing with such a small sample of people.

Game trends are also a draft factor. The game is a lot faster now. So the requirements that are needed to be an AFL footballer have changed even from a few years ago. Some draft picks are now being found out for lack of pace and others are coming into their own due to their athletic ability, although they may have been speculative choices. Will future rule changes make it less likely some players will succeed and bring others into their own?

How does your theory factor in the relative weaknesses or otherwise of certain drafts. Does your theory also take into account that certain years have better tall prospects than others? Look at how many talls were taken in last years first round, with Hawkins as a handy F/S.

Father/ son choices are a wildcard. Again dumb luck is involved and that factor causes a draft imbalance which makes an analysis difficult. The pick they are taken at has little to do with their ability or position. So how do you factor them in? The position the father/son's play can also influence clubs whole draft strategies.

Kids grow. How does a draft analysis take this into account? A club may think they have a certain type of player and then they have a growth spurt. Some players can grow into awkward inbetween heights. The different physiology of some kids is also a factor. Some can bulk up too easily when they stop growing while others just can't put weight on. Others in the past have stupidly expected kids to grow and they haven't. Massie anyone


Draft day is dealing primarily with potential. So any all encompassing theory just cannot apply. There are just too many factors that can decide whether a player succeeds or fails regardless of position or player type. The fact that recruiters and then coaches may differ on the positions players are seen as playing or will end up playing makes any theory based on position or type problematic. The what if factor comes in. Could players have succeeded at other clubs or if tried in another position?. What if they didn't get injured? What if they had been better motivated? What if they hadn't been homesick? What if the AFL lifestyle hadn't sent them down a questionable path? What if the coach had believed in them more? What if every club had the same resources? What if every club had the same culture? What if the AFL hadn't become so fast?

An interesting excercise btdg. I have avoided cutting down a few trees and a bit of painting successfully The wife will not be happy, but this was very important and I'm sure she will agree...not

 

[drusswaylander]

LOL, MK, I dont' think I am any less biased than some of the Kreuzer pushers.....In fact I would have thought watching a fiar bit of the kids would make you less susceptible to some of the media-generated hype??? I have constantly maintained it is very hard to split the top 3 prospects this year.

Are you sure mate Could there be a lack of insight here? Do you now for various reasons have an emotional investment in Cotch? You have been a bit emotive with the whole thing at times. I accept that you rate the big bloke, but do you, even subconsciously look for reasons to draft Cotch and conversely not Kreuzer? I think you will be genuinely upset if we don't take Cotch.

This is not an attack mate, just that a few recruiters I have spoken to have said that the two main dangers that can occur when watching a player a number of times are, being overly critical of their faults and developing an emotional attachment to those they rate. It makes it hard to make an objective choice.

I admit I have an emotional investment in the Knights players, but a number of them and I will be happy with any that we take, because they are good kids and will reward us

 

[Salaryman]

Are you sure mate Could there be a lack of insight here? Do you now for various reasons have an emotional investment in Cotch? You have been a bit emotive with the whole thing at times. I accept that you rate the big bloke, but do you, even subconsciously look for reasons to draft Cotch and conversely not Kreuzer? I think you will be genuinely upset if we don't take Cotch.

This is not an attack mate, just that a few recruiters I have spoken to have said that the two main dangers that can occur when watching a player a number of times are, being overly critical of their faults and developing an emotional attachment to those they rate. It makes it hard to make an objective choice.

I admit I have an emotional investment in the Knights players, but a number of them and I will be happy with any that we take, because they are good kids and will reward us

Mate, here's a tip..........stick to the socilogy, publicanism, hanging on my posts, whatever, and leave the psychologising to me, am well aware of the phenomena you describe, no lack of insight here .

 

[drusswaylander]

Mate, here's a tip..........stick to the socilogy, publicanism, hanging on my posts, whatever, and leave the psychologising to me, am well aware of the phenomena you describe, no lack of insight here .

Is that a lack of insight into your lack of insight

Remember I have a minor in Psyche, but I take your point

 

[Salaryman]

Is that a lack of insight into your lack of insight

Remember I have a minor in Psyche, but I take your point

Did you ever stop to think you were guilty of projecting?

 

[drusswaylander]

Did you ever stop to think you were guilty of projecting?

Very good...possible.

Perhaps I have less of an emotional attachment to Cotch, because he has played so many games for PEGS rather than the Knights. Although I would be shattered if we take neither...as unlikely as that would be

Complex...well not really, but I thought we were talking about you

 

[btdg]

Interesting read btdg. Well argued, but as soon as you have to add so many qualifications then the basic hypothesis becomes flawed. I have a few days off and I am procrastinating over a few household jobs, so I'll have a look at this. I'll tell my wife it was a vital project ...

Loved your engagement with my theory - so to offer my responses (and to hopefully continue your procrastination!):

- Midfielders are a safer bet, but the potential return from KP players is higher? I'll go to the statistics on this one. Expanding the period to 1999-2003(mainly to increase sample size), I've rated the players who 'made it' as mids and KP players in the first round as A (star), B (good) or C (solid):
Key position: A=5 B=6 C=5. Percentage of A = 31%
Midfielders: A=7 B=13 C=7. Percentage of A = 25%
That supports your argument to some degree, that the chances of a player who makes it as a midfielder being an a-rated player are smaller. But, when you factor in the higher probability of midfielders making it:
% of KP who make it (55%) x % of those who are A-rated (31%) = 24%
% of Mid who make it (85%) x % of those who are A-rated (26%) = 22%
Going on this admittedly small sample, it appears that if you take a key-position player in the first round, there is about a 55% chance they succeed at AFL level, and a 24% chance of them being a superstar. If you take a midfielder, there is an 85% chance of them being successful, and a 22% chance they will be a superstar. I think that supports my theory, although I'm prepared to conceed the bias from 2001 (Judd, Ball, Hodge - all a-rated) as a distortion (without them, the mids would be at 85% and 14%, which I suspect might be a truer estimation in the long run).

- The argument about relying on opinions is true - and is itself the biggest argument in favour of my theory! My theory states that despite all the research that has been done, a signficant proportion of high draft picks who are key position players fail. This is because they often haven't fully grown or filled out, and they are prone to injury. Midfielders, on the other hand, are a safer bet - in my opinion because they tend to be closer to their playing size and weight, so its easier to judge. Because opinions are often wrong, I'm trying to remove the element of opinion from the equation as much as possible, by instituting rational rules for drafting that simplify the process. If you conceed that picking KP prospecs in the first round is too difficult (and that picking utilities tends to fail regardless of the round), then you only need to study midfielders likely to go in the first round. You can concentrate your efforts on them, but more importantly, your choices become clearer. Last year, for example, Carlton were deciding between Gibbs and Leuenberger, and it was a tough call. My theory says ignore Leuenberger - as a result, the only option we would have considered would be Gibbs; providing we are roughly in the ball-park in our player analysis, we remove a lot of the subjectivity from the equation.

- As for individuals, sure - there are some factors you can't account for. But those factors are unbiased in their distribution, so irrelevant to the actual theory. In practice, you could still use them to discriminate within the group you are picking from. If you follow the theory, you still have to pick the best midfielder available in the first round - attitude could be one factor used for that. Again, its subjective, but you'd probably only be comparing 5 players instead of 9, so I reckon the theory helps a lot.

- I touched on strength and weakness of drafts before. In a strong draft, shift everything down half a round (ie mids to halfway through the third round, specialists to half-way through the fourth etc). In a weak draft, shift everything up (take specialists earlier, start gambling on bigs earlier etc). Depending on how strong or how weak it is, would affect how far you shift. That said, my original analysis is skewed to Carlton's drafting position over the last 6 years because thats how I formulated it (by seeing how we drafted compared to teams around us) and I suspect the true cutoffs should be 1-25 mids, 25-40 specialists, 41-60 KP, 61+ utility/KP. Use 5 picks as the 'slide' factor based on the strength of the draft and thats a decent basis as to how I see it working in practice.

The reason for the 'slide' relates to the psychology of specialists as much as anything. I believe that in a weak draft, teams start to think about grabbing the one-dimensional types earlier, as there are less all-round prospects to choose from. That means that if you want a good specialist (and remember, stats show they tend to go quickly in a bunch with nothing left over), you have to take them earlier. You'd also expect the number of quality midfielders to be less too, so taking a mid at pick 25 in a weak draft might be reaching a bit. The opposite is true in a strong draft - more good mids available, and teams believe there is more all-round talent so they'll wait before taking specialists. We saw it a bit last year with guys like Alwyn Davey who dropped in a strong draft, even though we knew they would be decent at AFL level, and more importantly, knew exactly HOW they would be decent (ie as a limited but effective small forward).

- I don't know how to factor in F/S choices in the new F/S scheme. Under the old one, it made sense to use your third-round pick on a KP player rated a first-round prospect because it was a 2-pick discount; you were getting value for money, even if value in the first-round comes from mids. Now, you'll be giving up your next available pick- so that could be a first-rounder, in which case I think you defer back to the theory. I'll pay sentiment as an important factor though, and probably concede you have to go back to conventional drafting for F/S picks.

- As for the divergence of opinion - thats true, and still a factor. But I suspect my theory simplifies the process a bit. In the early rounds, you are looking for true midfielders. A recruiter only has to look at a player, and justify them as being a midfielder. If they aren't - discard them (except for the pick 1 exception). Then its a subjective call over who is better. You couldn't make the error with Keplar Bradley, cos you'd never pick him. I suspect the more rigidly you applied the theory, the better your decision-making would become. Recruiters would begin to think about exactly how a player fits into AFL football, rather than worrying so much about 'potential' and who is the 'best available'. With Keplar Bradley, you'd look at him first in the third round under my scheme - and only then as either a pure ruckman, or a pure full-forward. If he didn't fit, you wouldn't look again until round 4 - by which stage, if he was still available, you'd take him as a generic big. With the benefit of hindsight, but bearing in mind that the rules are set rigidly - doesn't that seem about right for Keplar Bradley? You'd consider him as a ruck, probably dismiss him in that role, then take him if available in round 4. Of course, the same applies to Lance Franklin - but with the odds stacked in favour of Bradley being the correct logic and Franklin the exception, not the other way around.

Finally, as for things like development and luck - you can ignore these with the draft because they are unbiased. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the teams who have developed players better over the period I studied picked midfielders over key position players, so it doesn't affect the final outcome, provided you have a big enough sample. The same goes for luck. You could of course debate the sample size - and you'd be 100% right. If I had a flawless sample, it call it a rule. As is, its just a theory...

Overall, calling it a 'fail-safe' draft strategy was wrong. Its not. Its just a particular strategy that I hypothesize leads to better results than trying to predict 'talent', 'potential' and all the other unpredictable factors involved in drafting.

 

[Go_Blues]

Did u acctually make those predictions before the draft? If u did go and work for Carlton.

I really think that the draft comes down to luck in the end. You can never know if they are going to make it, injuries play a big part in whether they do or not.

 

[drusswaylander]

Loved your engagement with my theory - so to offer my responses (and to hopefully continue your procrastination!):

No problem On occasion the forum is a bit like the old Uni days. Wipes away a nostalgic tear

The wife is a bit cranky as I have been a bit slack during the first couple of weeks of my holidays, so I'll probably have to give a better reply next week Rather than just "I don't agree"